memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Files for deletion
Image:DataBeard.jpg ;Image:DataBeard.jpg *Working on the Data page, it occurred to me this image is totally unnecessary. There is practically no reference to Data growing a beard in the article, and such an insignificant detail does not need an image. After all, there were barely two minutes alltogether which showed Data with his beard. Ottens 16:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Ah yes, but the article is incomplete. At the moment I vote neutral. The fact of why he did it - all part of being a student of the humanities is a topic that can be well discussed in his article (not necessary about growing a beard, but as an example of one of the many things). As well, it does go well with explaining what he, as an android, is capable of doing with is body, as was discussed with Bashir in "Birthright". --Gvsualan 19:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ** Seeking to reduce the number of images on the Data page ;) I found Data's growing of a beard unimportant enough for an image. That, plus I don't think it could be used on any other page (the beard was rather insignificant in the episode as well)... Ottens 15:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Has there been enough information to justify an article about beards ("Cause and Effect", "Q Who?", etc.) in reference to Star Trek? keep, some fans keep track of that sort of thing -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk **An article about beards would be interesting... but we need to ask ourselves... is it important for the casual fan need to know what Data looked like with a beard? -- SmokeDetector47 // ''talk'' 18:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Re: Mike - There is also the refence to Riker shaving off his beard in Insurrection and the whole "smooth as an androids butt" joke. As well, there could be something mentioned about Siskos new look, in the little Ben/Jake/goatee interaction, from "Explorers". There might be enough to make a beard fetish page. ;) --Gvsualan 10:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Image:Picard and Data (2379).jpg ;Image:Picard and Data (2379).jpg *Currently this image is linked to emergency transport unit. The emergency transport unit does not even appear in the image, in fact, all that appears is Picard dematerializing, which is nothing new. If the point of the image is to show the emergency transport unit, certainly a screencap of Data slapping it onto Picard where you can clearly see what it looks like would be a better. Otherwise the images value of Data and Picard together is negligible, and a better image of the two in 2379 might be the two sharing a glass of champagne in Picard's ready room. --Gvsualan 19:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) *I'm currently working on the Data page where the image will be used. I think Data saving Picard and therewith sacrificing his own life is a moment important enough to deserve an image? Ottens 20:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) *'keeep' for summary also, but remove from incorrect context on transport unit page -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk ::Well, for now it's the best image on it... As soon as there's a better image on the transport unit, it can be replaced on its page, but as I pointed out I think the image is important enough for the Data page. Ottens 22:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) Image:A Galaxy class ship in 2371.JPG ;Image:A Galaxy class ship in 2371.JPG * ...seems unnecessary. It was placed on the Star Trek: Generations page, but in reality, shows nothing of importance - i.e. no interactions or special backgrounds. Basically it is just a forward view of a Galaxy class, which is essentially what Image:Enterprise-d.jpg shows. --Gvsualan 02:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) *That's true so I wouldn't lose sleep if it goes... I don't know. It looks a little more dynamic for lack of a better term. Isn't that original pick from the late 80's during TNG's early run? 2371 is a refurbished and revamped model from the '94 Generations film. It's a extremely small difference admittedly, but still. the pic is shown at an angle we rarely saw on the show (I've watched my Generations Special Edition DVD supplements too much, heh)--BC19 02:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) *'Comment' on the image itself. I'm not going to place stock in whether it should stay or not; but if it does, it definitely needs to be appropriately cropped. — THOR 04:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) *'Keep'. This may sound a bit weird, but the ship looks slightly different in the movie than on TV. It has much more contrast, and appears to have more detaile. Jaz 04:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) **Cropping is a given, that only takes 10 seconds to do. But, overall, one needs to address the usefulness. How many images of the same ship from how many different angles do we neccessarily need? I mentioned that other image as a possible alternate to replace the image with, otherwise we really don't need all of the redundancies. I won't object if we can find a good home for it, but right now, the way I see it, there are only two places for it, Galaxy class or USS Enterprise-D. If this is the case, then something has to be removed or replaced to keep the extra image of the same ship at a similar angle around in the image archives. --Gvsualan 04:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) *We already have an image of the Enterprise-D as it appeared on "These Are the Voyages", besides several other images of Galaxy-class starships. I vote to delete this unnecessary image. Ottens 09:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) *'Keep' Image:Enterprise-d.jpg is a publicity shot, while this is actually appeared on screen. Excelsior 10:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) **So what? Many images used for characters are publicity shots, for the reason these images are high quality (examples: Data, Picard, Riker, Beverly). We already have three frontal shots (1, 2 and 3) of the Enterprise-D, one aft view (1) from These Are the Voyages. Besides, we have several images of the Enterprise-D and other Galaxy-class starships, all showing significant things like saucer-seperation or the vessel during battle. This image adds nothing significant. Ottens 11:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I'd like to bring up a point about the necessity of some variant 1701-D/Galaxy-class images -- there were actually several Galaxy models used over the course of TNG, its spinoffs, and films. * The 6-foot 1701-D model - it was also painted "robin's egg blue" in color, noted by Andrew Probert, ** This model was painted specially to reflect some of its shooting lights better in its first appearance in "Encounter at Farpoint". This appearance was shot by ILM, but footage of this paintjob was used throughout TNG's seven seasons. ** For the restof season 1 and 2, this model was used, but without the paintjob being reflectively lit. (I'm not sure, this might have been at Image G or another effects company. IT was at this time this model was also used as the USS Yamato) ** This model was only brought out of retirement for saucr sep or closeup shots, until Generations when it was repainted to its original specs and was filmed by original effects firm ILM. (This is the model in Image:A Galaxy class ship in 2371.JPG) * The 4-foot Enterprise-D model was built around TNG season 3 and 4. It was smaller and easier to film, but had more surface detail. The configuration of the defector dish is shaped slightly different. (Image:Enterprise-d.jpg is a studio publicity photo of this model). The color was made a more standard gray. **This model was used for the rest of "The Next Generation", shots of the 1701-D docked at DS9, and also for the USS Odyssey and possibly USS Venture. From the same mold, copies of it were made as replicas and backup models. **This includes the future "All Good Things..." modification, and some of the "Exploding Galaxy" shots created for "Cause and Effect". The "All Good Things" 1701-D was modified back to regular arrangement to become the aforementioned ships at DS9, but with extra weapons emplacements left in place. * A CGI 1701-D was created for Generations ** this model was reused on Deep Space 9, but sometimes had different color schemes in CGI rendering. ** The CGI was used in Voyager also as USS Challenger ** A detailed CGI was used in the Enterprise finale. I intend to create some notes in articles about these modifications and variants, but i think it would be illustrative to have an image of each model. Providing each one was also used in a summary and on other technical pages like the Galaxy class article, would it be acceptable to keep at least one example of each Enterprise or Galaxy class modification. This probably means 6 images or so, each of which would be useful on more than two pages -- some of them, many more, for the single shots that were meant to represent two or more different ships. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 12:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) :There are a few brief bits about this subject here, including an image of all three 1701-D miniatures side-by-side. Just for reference, the six-footer was probably never relabeled with the Yamato registry or name; all appearances of the Yamato were reuses of stock footage of the 1701-D. Also, the image in question actually represents the CGI model created for Generations and reused for DS9 and VOY, and not the refurbished six-footer. The structure of the deflector dish is different and the new details on the lifeboats have disappeared. Sadly, the refurbished D was used in a precious few shots during Generations. :Regarding the image itself, I'm voting delete for now... the Enterprise-D page is getting somewhat crowded with images in that area and if we do want to have an image showing a CGI Galaxy, there are several available at USS Galaxy, USS Challenger, and (perhaps unnecessarily) at USS Venture. -- SmokeDetector47 // ''talk'' 18:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::The scene of the Yamato exploding wasn't stock footage, and the saucer was labeled with its registry, but i believe they used a pyrotechnic model. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 12:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Image:Archer-tpol-tatv-2.jpg ;An image of Archer and T'Pol * that doesn't show a lot and has watermarks. It was kept because "It was the last shot of Enterprise", according to Ottens. However, the real last shot of Enterprise has now been added to the episode page of that series' finale. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 15:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) * keep - the second to last shot seems important to me also for some reason -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk ** remove watermark, though. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * We do have another shot from the same scene Image:Archer-tpol-tatv.jpg, and, personally, it seems to carry a bit of weight, if any is to be carried. --Gvsualan 12:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) * How exactly is this shot, showing the backs of Archer and T'Pol important? It's their backs, for goodness sake!!! What important information does that add to the page that's not already there? --Defiant | ''Talk'' 16:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Although we already have Image:Archer-tpol-tatv.jpg, I think this image -- with watermark removal -- is much nicer than Image:Archer-tpol-tatv.jpg. Ottens 16:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Whether you like it or not, Memory Alpha is an encyclopedia, not an image gallery. It focuses more on information than pictures, and even images should be informative. This image needs to go! --Defiant | ''Talk'' 10:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Or maybe not! --Defiant | ''Talk'' 22:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: Image needs to be orphaned for deletion. --Gvsualan 07:50, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC) Image:Odyssey cruising.jpg ;Image:Odyssey cruising.jpg *I'm not sure that this is the Odyssey or that the image is from DS9: "The Jem'Hadar." Excelsior 15:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) **The image is what it claims to be -- that particular camera angle and lighting scheme is unique to that episode. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk *It's really low quality, and we already have an image of the Odyssey being destroyed... Ottens 16:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) * I'm not sure I agree with the uniqueness of this. Weren't the runabouts in every scene of the Odyssey "cruising"? --Gvsualan 13:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) ** Yes, I just capped that episode. That image is not what it claims to be. The Odyssey was never seen "cruising" alone, it was in formation with the two, then three runabouts. --Gvsualan 16:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) *** Let me backpedal here a bit. That is the Odyssey -- however, the fact that the image is so small makes it quite difficult to tell if the runabouts are in the picture (they should be seen off in front of the port nacelle). I can upload a larger cap from the episode over this if we want to keep it, however, I am not sure it is that necessary to have? I added Image:USS Odyssey firing phasers.jpg intended for The Destruction of the Odyssey that could also be placed on the USS Odyssey page. It is far more "action oriented" image than that of the Odyssey flying through space...which, in my opinion, is really no different that some of the images we have of the Enterprise-D flying through space, sans the subtleties. --Gvsualan 22:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) **** There's a good image in that episode of the Odyssey coming through the Bajoran wormhole. Could someone upload that? Excelsior 16:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *** I capped it, but it doesnt look "good". Its a 'long shot' and so the ship is small and it would, overall, makes for an insignificant screencap. --Gvsualan 07:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Image:Riker2379.jpg ;Image:Riker2379.jpg *We already have Image:CmdrRiker2379.jpg. Both images are screencaps from Nemesis, the only exception being the one nominated for deletion shows him with four rank pips instead of three. Ottens 18:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Swap the two; again, I prefer the former to the latter. A smaller image for the same worth, and well ... I just like the picture better. Just my 3¢. — THOR 18:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *''Three'' cents? Hm. Anyhow, I'm not that fond of CmdrRiker2379 as well, but Riker2379 looks rather sad... Either way, one should be removed, and a new version can always be uploaded over the other... Ottens 18:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) *I'd like to see the final image have captain's rank insignia. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk :: I'll attempt to capture a new image to see if I can come up with anything better. --Gvsualan 13:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::: I've uploaded a decent headshot of Riker with his captain's pips as a potential replacement: Image:WilliamRiker2379.jpg. --Gvsualan 18:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I must say I prefer the quality of the other two images... Ottens 18:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Donatra ;Image:Cmdr-donatra.jpg / Image:CommanderDonatra.jpg *I'm not sure which one to keep but i don't think we need both. one's too bright and one's too dark. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) : I prefer the former. — THOR 02:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: The darkness is somewhat unavoidable, as most all of her scenes were dark. I'll also attempt to capture a new image to see if I can come up with anything better. --Gvsualan 13:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::The first one is really light, so I prefer to keep the second one for now, until a better image can be found to replace it. Ottens 15:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) : I've uploaded Image:Donatra (Commander).jpg as a potential replacement. --Gvsualan 18:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Delete Image:Cmdr-donatra.jpg / Image:CommanderDonatra.jpg, keep Image:Donatra (Commander).jpg --AmdrBoltz 09:22, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC) Orphaned and Deleted Image:Cmdr-donatra.jpg / Image:CommanderDonatra.jpg. --Gvsualan 08:28, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) Image:Enterprise and rogue comet.jpg ;Image:Enterprise and rogue comet.jpg Replaced with smaller and better-named Image:Masks.jpg. Also, the latter actually shows the episode title... Ottens 15:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) : "Enterprise and rogue comet.jpg" is far more descript name than "Masks.jpg" --Gvsualan 15:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) The image's only use is for the "Masks" page. "Enterprise and rogue comet" could be descriptive for the Enterprise along any comet, this image is specifically for the episode. "Masks" would be a better title, IMO. Ottens 16:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: How many episodes was the E-D alongside comets where the image could otherwise come from?--Gvsualan 10:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :"Enterprise and rogue comet" is a too general naming as it could be used for any vessel named Enterprise along any rogue comet. Additionally, the most important reason why "Masks.jpg" is a far more logical name for this image is because it was uploaded specifically for the "Masks" page. No other usage of the image is possible as it shows the episode title. Ottens 14:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: The name can be changed, however, I don't recall agreeing upon the need to have a screencap of every episode "title". To me, it seems like 700 unnecessary screencaps just to see the name of the article title in the form of a screen cap. --Gvsualan 16:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :After seeing it on several pages, I figured it had become a standard...? Ottens 16:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Image:AdmiralKirkTMP.jpg ;Image:AdmiralKirkTMP.jpg. Not great quality; we already have the better Image:TMP 1.jpg. If possibly, I would like to ask one of the admins to rename the latter, however. Ottens 15:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: We need a 3rd alternative. The first image is good, just too light. That can be fixed. The second image is zoomed in too close. Seeing Kirk in his uniform seems more important here. --Gvsualan 10:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Image:Fcentr.jpg ;Image:Fcentr.jpg * I don't see this as relevant for the Sovereign class page -- which in my opinion shows far too many "battle" shots and not enough shots describing the ships features..i.e. no shuttle bay or none of the captains yacht. --Gvsualan 10:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ** Oppose. We usually have images of a vessel at warp accompanying the "Propulsion systems" section of "Technical Data" (example: Image:Constitution class refit warpjump.jpg on the ''Constitution''-class page). We have similar images of Galaxy- and Intrepid-class starships at warp which can be added to the "Propulsions systems" section on those articles. Ottens 14:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Then perhaps it should be renamed to an name with meaning and replaced with an actual sceencap. --Gvsualan 08:20, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC) **Renaming would be good. I don't see the necessity to replace it with an actuel screenshot. It's an official promotion photo, which is just fine, isn't it? We use those on most character and ship pages... Ottens 10:26, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC) Ktaris ;Image:Ktaris.jpg; Image:Ktaris and Naomi Wildman.jpg; Image:Naomi Wildman activates Ktaris clouds.jpg I intentionally uploaded three similar images so that users can choose what picture(s) stay(s). --Defiant | ''Talk'' 20:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *I suggest that the Ktaris.jpg image would be good for the Ktaris page, because the page is about Ktaris, and not about Naomi Wildman. However, perhaps one of the other images could be incorporated into the Naomi Wildman page. zsingaya 20:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Agreed. The first one for Ktaris and probably "Image:Ktaris and Naomi Wildman.jpg" for her page, if there is a reason to add it to her page (perhaps under a section on her studies, if one were to be made?) --Gvsualan 20:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *If we do that, I suggest "Image:Ktaris and Naomi Wildman.jpg" be renamed to "Image:Naomi Wildman and Ktaris.jpg". --Defiant | ''Talk'' 21:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Taken the suggested course of action, will soon re-upload Image:Ktaris and Naomi Wildman.jpg, if no-one else does it first. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 21:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ** Is Image:Ktaris.jpg considered for deletion or will it be placed on an article somewhere? At the moment it appears to be unused. --Gvsualan 07:50, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Changed image back to Image:Ktaris.jpg, which was voted on. For some odd reason, the image was changed to Image:Naomi Wildman activates Ktaris clouds.jpg. That image should now be considered for deletion or use, as it's not being used in an article. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 11:57, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC) *I say we delete Image:Ktaris.jpg and keep one of the other two and use it at both Ktaris and Naomi Wildman. Jaf 12:02, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)Jaf ;At the moment: *Image:Ktaris and Naomi Wildman.jpg has been deleted, *Image:Naomi Wildman activates Ktaris clouds.jpg is unused, * and Image:Ktaris.jpg is found on Ktaris. --Gvsualan 08:28, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) Image:Fed starbase.jpg ;Image:Fed starbase.jpg We have the better named and better quality Image:Starbase 375 with ships.jpg. Ottens 12:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC) : Image needs to be orphaned before deletion. --Gvsualan 08:34, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC) : Orphaned. zsingaya 07:58, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: Deleted --Gvsualan 08:28, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) Tachyon detection grid ;Image:Tachyon detection grid.jpg Not screen accurate. The USS Ahwahnee was replaced with the USS Valkyrie. --62.46.64.151 16:19, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC) : To my knowledge, unregistered users cannot nominate items for deletion. --Gvsualan 08:01, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC) ::Technically correct, but in this case I was just about to nominate it myself for the same reasons: Ahwahnee was replaced by Valkyrie; error or not, Tian An Men seems to be spelled Tian Nan Men in the original; Sutherland and Charleston swapped their positions. My suggestion is to delete this image, at least replace it with an actual screenshot. If there are further objections to the anonymous nomination, feel free to regard this as renominated by myself. -- Cid Highwind 08:57, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC) :Delete --AmdrBoltz 09:20, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC) Image:Torres dreadnought.jpg ;Image:Torres dreadnought.jpg : I'm not sure I see the relevancy of this image. It doesn't enhance the article which it is placed on, nor does it show anything that cannot be seen in any other Torres image. If we want to add an image of Torrest on the Dreadnought, have it showing her at a vital point in the episode or showing something unique from the Dreadnought that helps the reader identify the missile better -- say her "stand off" with it when she it trying to kill it and it her. That would be a relevant image. --Gvsualan 21:55, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC) Various Old Images: ;Image:Spitfire.jpg: *Unused, uncited, not originating from Trek source. --Gvsualan 08:28, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'-AJHalliwell 08:56, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) ;Image:The Enterprise E in drydock.JPG: *Unused. --Gvsualan 08:28, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) ;Image:Nog2369.jpg: *Unused, uncited. --Gvsualan 08:28, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) Various Logos: ;Image:UFPLogoPriorTo2240.jpg: *Unused, uncited. --Gvsualan 08:28, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'-AJHalliwell 08:56, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) ;Image:UFPLogo2240.jpg: *Unused, uncited. --Gvsualan 08:28, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'-AJHalliwell 08:56, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) ;Image:UFPLogo2270.jpg: *Unused, uncited. --Gvsualan 08:28, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'-AJHalliwell 08:56, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) ;Image:UFPLogoUntil2290.jpg: *Unused, uncited. --Gvsualan 08:28, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'-AJHalliwell 08:56, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) Various Enterprise Images: ;Image:Andorianscript.jpeg: *Unused, uncited. --Gvsualan 08:28, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) *'Delete', for starters, a used version of this image already exists at Image:Andorian PADD.jpg. -AJHalliwell 08:56, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) ;Image:K\'Vagh and Antaak.jpg: *Unused, uncited. --Gvsualan 08:28, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'-AJHalliwell 08:56, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) ;Image:Fleet deployments.jpg: *Unused, uncited. --Gvsualan 08:28, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' If that's what I think it is, a more informative version of this image already exists at Image:Gral shows Archer his ships.jpg Although that seems to have less ships, before they enlisted the Vulcans or something. -AJHalliwell 08:56, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) ;Image:Archer stops his MACOs.jpg: *Unused, uncited. --Gvsualan 08:28, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'-AJHalliwell 08:56, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) Image:Rogue.jpg ;Image:Rogue.jpg, unused after 4 months. --Gvsualan 08:28, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' - is that white spot on the image, or did mine load badly?-AJHalliwell 08:56, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' - probably a candidate for speedy, since the Rogue article has Image:Rogue_novel.jpg. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 09:12, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) Images from Beta & Gamma Kwadrant Image:Kaart Gamma kwadrant.jpg and Image:Kaart Beta Kwadrant.jpg Sorry guys, but i just uploaded a couple of images and to the english version instead of the dutch version. They are the same as the once already existing here. So please delete them. Patricia 11:43, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) :Done. :) -- Cid Highwind 12:09, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) Image:Marlafinn2.jpg ;Image:Marlafinn2.jpg This is just part of the image at Image:Marlafinn.jpg. A picture of her *alive*, not in a computer, would be much more useful. -AJHalliwell 04:49, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC) : I trawelled the web for hours and this is all I could find, this is the only image available. --Filth 05:08, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)